Fox Network Entertainment Chief Out: There’s probably no good time to fire a network executive. Fox dumped its entertainment chief Kevin Reilly, reports WSJ, just weeks after the executive unveiled the company’s fall schedule at Fox’s upfront. Before that he had gone on something of a press tour touting his vision of a television future that contained no pilots or traditional seasons. The timing of his departure feels sort of bizarre. Now Fox’s sales guys have to try and talk ad buyers into spending millions on a scheduling strategy the network brass may or may not believe in, and on a vision that could easily turn to dust by the fall.

Is Mr. Reilly’s replacement going to stick with any promising but ratings-challenged shows that weren’t his babies? Maybe not—although whoever takes over can’t cancel everything, unless Fox has an inordinate number of midseason shows in the works (unlikely). And ad buyers may simply be happy that Fox was decisive. After all, the network did not have a good year, so it’s tough to defend Mr. Reilly’s performance. Still, Fox surely saw that coming earlier in the year. Why not make the change a few months ago and install a new entertainment boss prior to picking a new schedule? Regardless, it will be interesting to see who Fox goes after (and who wants the very difficult job). FX president John Landgraf is a natural candidate, given that cable net’s success. Adweek has already suggested AMC’s Charlie Collier might be considered. Here’s an off-the-wall suggestion, since Fox claims to really want to think differently: what about someone with digital blood? Jason Kilar, Hulu’s former CEO? Brian Robbins, who founded AwesomenessTV, and has a knack for figuring out what Millennials like? (Or they could offer CBS’s Les Moonves a billion dollars a year; he might almost be worth it).

Native Ad Labels Get More ‘Clear’: So BuzzFeed is changing the way it labels its native advertising, reports WSJ’s CMO Today. No more yellow shading, no more “BuzzFeed partner” label for all those listicles that brands churn out these days. The move, which includes labeling content as coming from “brand publishers,” is part of the subtle game Web publishers are playing these days. How can you post content from brands and not make it look like it comes from brands so unknowing customers will read it—without making it look like you tried to make it look like you were trying to dupe anybody (even if you were). This dance is happening across the Web, as brands reject banner ads in favor of sponsor-produced content (and every brand thinks of itself as a publisher these days, anyhow). And nobody on the publishing side wants to freak out regulators … but they want the bigger native ad money to keep coming in. There’ll surely be an outcry among advocacy groups about BuzzFeed’s move, but the bet here is that consumers will be OK in the end if they read a cat list from Sprite instead of a cat list from BuzzFeed.

AMC Wants to Own More Hits: Call it the Netflix effect. With more cable networks seeing their original series enjoying second lives on Netflix—or in many cases, getting discovered on Netflix for the first time—cable networks like AMC want to own more of their shows. Why? Because when shows like “Mad Men” start attracting more interest from licensors like Netflix later in their runs, it’s the show’s producers (in “Mad Men’s” case, Lionsgate) rather than the network who cash in. Thus, AMC Networks Inc., which has built its brand on buzzy hits that are often ideal for Netflix binging, wants to own more of its series, reports WSJ. That’s the case with the monster hit “The Walking Dead” as well as the new 1980s-set series “Halt and Catch Fire.” The strategy is reminiscent of the broadcast networks looking to own more of their own shows in years past, looking to make a killing in syndication down the road. Here’s the only downside (and it’s a big one): If you own most of your shows, you really own your failures—it costs more upfront to own. And if nobody wants to license your show, you can take a big financial hit. Investors don’t like that. And sooner or later, AMC—which has been on a heck of a roll with Dead and “Breaking Bad” and “Mad Men”—will start to fail more frequently.

IPG Mystery Solved?: Is an activist hedge fund trying to force somebody to take over the agency holding company Interpublic? Could be. The suspect at the moment is activist investor Elliott Management. Elliott is a hedge fund run by Paul Singer, a billionaire known for stirring up M&A activity. One might ask, if you’re a billionaire, why spend your time trying to drum up interest in an agency holding company that seems to have little prospect of hyper growth? What’s the end-game? Of course, there may be reasons why you aren’t a billionaire.

About CMO Today

CMO Today is an offering from The Wall Street Journal, helping marketing executives discern who and what matters in marketing today. Contact our editors with news items, comments and questions at CMOToday@WSJ.com.